Impact on NASA during potential change of President

[STSMartinG]

There's a feeling among some of us that we're slow rolling to wait to see what the outcome of the Presidential elections will be and I'm starting the thread to see what our fears and hopes will be.

Would it be better for another term for Obama, or would a change bring hope of extra focus on NASA, or threaten to delay matters as they work out what to do with the Agency?

[Longhorn John]

A change of administration should see a change of NASA leadership, so that's my hope.

[Robotbeat]

There's a feeling among some of us that we're slow rolling to wait to see what the outcome of the Presidential elections will be and I'm starting the thread to see what our fears and hopes will be.

Would it be better for another term for Obama, or would a change bring hope of extra focus on NASA, or threaten to delay matters as they work out what to do with the Agency?

If you're hoping for direction or leadership in space coming from Mitt Romney, I'm sorry to disappoint:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ePcJhoF4ATM&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/ePcJhoF4ATM&rel=1</a>

[QuantumG]

Unless you think Newt is going to win (or even get a chance to run), it seems like Obama is your best choice for NASA. Think about how terrible that is.

[Chris Bergin]

Hmm, here's a question. If there was a change of President, are General Bolden and Lori Garver automatically out? Not totally sure how it works.

[QuantumG]

Not automatically, but the norm is to clean house.

[robertross]

Hmm, here's a question. If there was a change of President, are General Bolden and Lori Garver automatically out? Not totally sure how it works.

General Bolden said he was going to leave anyway, and if what is true about Lori Garver's 'freinds' in Congress, she won't last very long, so it would likely be a wholesale change regardless.

[deltaV]

Hmm, here's a question. If there was a change of President, are General Bolden and Lori Garver automatically out? Not totally sure how it works.

Usually the president appoints his own people to head federal agencies, but sometimes he doesn't. For example:
- Secretary of Defense Gates served 2006-2011, spanning several years of both the Bush and Obama administrations.
- Daniel Goldin served as NASA administrator under Bush senior, Clinton and Bush junior.

[Proponent]

What we've seen lately is that NASA's direction has been determined largely by the members of Congress from the states and districts containing NASA centers.  Almost regardless of who wins the next presidential election, that's likely to continue, because no president has ever been willing to expend a significant amount of political capital on NASA:  it's just not important on the national stage.  The faces may change, but the policy is unlikely to.

Gingrich might be different:   he seems willing to attempt a major change at NASA.  The likelihood that he would both win and be effective in implementing his agenda is tiny.

[MATTBLAK]

Hmm, here's a question. If there was a change of President, are General Bolden and Lori Garver automatically out? Not totally sure how it works.

General Bolden said he was going to leave anyway, and if what is true about Lori Garver's 'freinds' in Congress, she won't last very long, so it would likely be a wholesale change regardless.

I heard it straight from the 'Horse's Mouth' - a couple of senior KSC workers I met last year - one said, and the other nodded; "If Lori Garver becomes NASA Administrator, they wont have to fire me - I'll quit!" He then went on to say that he'd heard similar things from his colleagues. As for the change of President, much as it pains me to admit; Obama might be best for NASA at this moment in time! Why? Romney and Santorum - if they think about space at all - simply don't care. Ron Paul? He's on record as being against Government, taxpayer-funded space altogether. And Newt Gingrich has little chance of becoming the GOP nominee.

[JohnFornaro]

"If Lori Garver becomes NASA Administrator, they wont have to fire me - I'll quit!"

If she does, they won't, unless they've already got a job lined up at, say ESA.  Hard to walk away from a cushy paycheck.  Water cooler talk is cheap.

[QuantumG]

If she does, they won't, unless they've already got a job lined up at, say ESA.  Hard to walk away from a cushy paycheck.  Water cooler talk is cheap.

+1. Integrity and professionalism? Are you kidding? We work for the government.

[Jim]

Hmm, here's a question. If there was a change of President, are General Bolden and Lori Garver automatically out? Not totally sure how it works.

General Bolden said he was going to leave anyway, and if what is true about Lori Garver's 'freinds' in Congress, she won't last very long, so it would likely be a wholesale change regardless.

I heard it straight from the 'Horse's Mouth' - a couple of senior KSC workers I met last year - one said, and the other nodded; "If Lori Garver becomes NASA Administrator, they wont have to fire me - I'll quit!"

former CXP workers.

I wouldn't care, she's better than Griffin.

[MATTBLAK]

"If Lori Garver becomes NASA Administrator, they wont have to fire me - I'll quit!"

If she does, they won't, unless they've already got a job lined up at, say ESA.  Hard to walk away from a cushy paycheck.  Water cooler talk is cheap.

I'm absolutely not making this up!! To protect their identity, I wont mention their names. But all I'll tell you is they looked reasonably close to retirement age anyway. And besides - a couple of you guys - please don't disrespect or second-guess these men and their integrity. Nor the way they see things. A couple of you fellows might even know them. You'd certainly know them better than me: just a foreign visitor to KSC - one of many - during STS-135. Emotions were high then, to put it mildly.

[spacetraveler]

If you're hoping for direction or leadership in space coming from Mitt Romney, I'm sorry to disappoint

How do you figure that?

Because he wasn't for a moon colony?

I agree with him that a moon colony is not feasible in the current situation and I would definitely like to see more exploration.

[Robotbeat]

If you're hoping for direction or leadership in space coming from Mitt Romney, I'm sorry to disappoint

How do you figure that?

Because he wasn't for a moon colony?

I agree with him that a moon colony is not feasible in the current situation and I would definitely like to see more exploration.

...except that's a complete mischaracterization of Newt's position, which was establishing a Moon base... which was basically national policy in the days of Constellation, mind you.

Constellation had many problems, partly because of Griffin (etc) and partly because of lack of funding. Well, do you have any reason to believe, based on what Mitt said, that the funding would be increased? And you do know that, although Mitt has no real space policy enumerated, Griffin has become one of his main advisers (perhaps the main adviser) on space policy, right?

No hope remains for direction or leadership in space policy to come from that corner. Unless Mitt does a 100% complete about-face, which seems incredibly unlikely. Mitt doesn't care about space, and he'll fire you for suggesting something as ambitious as a Moon base (which is less ambitious than a Mars surface mission).

[QuantumG]

Unless Mitt does a 100% complete about-face, which seems incredibly unlikely.

Uhhh.. it is[/i] Mitt Romney you're talking about, right?

[Robotbeat]

Unless Mitt does a 100% complete about-face, which seems incredibly unlikely.

Uhhh.. it is Mitt Romney you're talking about, right?

Touche.

[spacetraveler]

Ah, wasn't aware Griffin was his main space guy. That is troubling, though if Mitt will fire you for going too big, I'm sure it wouldn't be long before Griffin got the axe for suggesting we cancel SLS because we need a bigger rocket. 

[Robotbeat]

Ah, wasn't aware Griffin was his main space guy. That is troubling, though if Mitt will fire you for going too big, I'm sure it wouldn't be long before Griffin got the axe for suggesting we cancel SLS because we need a bigger rocket. 

Not only that, but for those who were furious about Obama's "been there, done that" statement about the Moon, here's Romney, as reported by Politico:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/riffing-romney-115513.html

...after a question about NASA and the space program [Romney responds]: "And I know China is headed to the Moon. They’re planning on going to the Moon, and some people say, oh, we’ve got to get to the Moon, we’ve got to get there in a hurry to prove we can get there before China. It’s like, guys, we were there a long time ago, all right? And when you get there would you bring back some of the stuff we left?

[tigerade]

It's less than 3 months until the election.  Does anyone know what Mitt Romney's space policy -is-?  I know what I'm getting with Obama.  I'm an undecided voter here, and space policy won't be the biggest thing on my mind when I go into the voting both.  Still, I don't want Romney to go towards his space policy with an axe, and see NASA as a tree.

[Go4TLI]

It's less than 3 months until the election.  Does anyone know what Mitt Romney's space policy -is-?  I know what I'm getting with Obama.  I'm an undecided voter here, and space policy won't be the biggest thing on my mind when I go into the voting both.  Still, I don't want Romney to go towards his space policy with an axe, and see NASA as a tree.

His policy is to have a "robust" program.  That is all one is likely to hear, given the harpooning Gingrich took for suggesting anything else (however it was mischaracterized) by the mainstream media that is, generally speaking, in cahoots with the Obama administration anyway. 

NASA is not a "tree".  It would be like trying to fund the daily paper requirements this country has with a forest of newly-planted samplings.  In other words it won't make a difference. 

In my opinion, anyone running for office who is serious about changing the course of this country and solving our fiscal woes will not even look at NASA and instead the real drivers of our fiscal nightmare.  That is entitlements and a tax code that penalizes the "rich" and middle class to fund everyone else and one that has so many loopholes that GE manages to somehow not pay *any* corporate taxes (mind you, the CEO and Obama are very politically connected). 

I would caution that you do not know what you are going to get with this administration.  It was Obama who made a very public speech trying to get elected, did something vastly different.  He is NOT the one to give credit to for COTS and CCDev, that is the oft-villianized Griffin.  He is the one who has suspended so much, left the agency adrift, but he and his surrogates who use rhetoric and half-truths to make it sound like more is going on than really is, all the while having kicked the can so far down the road this administration has to do nothing about it.  I don't see why people don't talk about that. 

Finally, and potentially most important, as the President of the United States, Mr. Obama is the Chief Executive.  His inaction and policies have plunged this country into deeper debt than ever while doing nothing that it was promised all that spending would do.  His inaction, to bring it back to NASA, is headed for a cliff with the automatic cuts that come with sequestration.  Those cuts to the DoD will have a very negative impact on the general aerospace supply base, which in turn will have a direct impact on the executeability of NASA programs. 

Whatever your vote, or anyone else reading this, ends up being I hope you take the above post seriously and worthy of consideration as you make your decision. 

[QuantumG]

In my opinion, anyone running for office who is serious about changing the course of this country and solving our fiscal woes will not even look at NASA and instead the real drivers of our fiscal nightmare.

Whereas someone who is just trying to make it look like they're doing something about those issues by "tightening belts" without actually upsetting all the people who depend on things like medicare, medicaid or doesn't feel up to tackling the social phenomena of class warfare, will cut NASA to the bone to send the message that they are "serious" while not actually doing anything useful.

We generally call that kind of person, "a politician".

[Go4TLI]

In my opinion, anyone running for office who is serious about changing the course of this country and solving our fiscal woes will not even look at NASA and instead the real drivers of our fiscal nightmare.

Whereas someone who is just trying to make it look like they're doing something about those issues by "tightening belts" without actually upsetting all the people who depend on things like medicare, medicaid or doesn't feel up to tackling the social phenomena of class warfare, will cut NASA to the bone to send the message that they are "serious" while not actually doing anything useful.

We generally call that kind of person, "a politician".

You have no insight into medicare, medicaid or the vast amount of fraud, waste and abuse that goes on with it from any number of policies and entitlements this administration has chosen to implement or ignore (to be fair however, this problem has been there for a long time and not just the current administration.  The fiscal policies of this administration have only amplified it).

For example, my mother works for a company that handles medicare and medicaid claims.  Explain to me how someone can get benefits from these programs, which are significant (after all, they are supposed to be paid into over the course of ones life), but nearly 60% of her case load cannot speak any English. 

Again, somethings are much bigger than NASA.  Those who are serious will tackle the problem by talking about the real drivers.  That is who will get my vote and you can continue to watch and comment if you wish. 

[tigerade]

Go4TLI, I greatly appreciate the response.  I am of course still thinking it over.  I'm the kind that likes to read between the lines, to get whatever the truth is instead of listening to all the noise.  Right now I am pretty dismayed by the two political parties, there is too much grandstanding and partisanship.  I completely agree that the fiscal situation has to be our country's top priority.
We have way more money going out than coming in, a huge defecit adding to an already enormous debt, a slow economy, an ongoing war, and a climate of uncertainty.  I wish we had real leadership, and Obama hasn't provided it.  At the same time, I don't love the Republicans.  It seems they are just as guilty as overspending and adding to waste. 
The biggest problem is that we love tax cuts, and the same time we love the goodies that come from big government, and that's a bad combination.  We have decreasing revenue and a ballooning government, a true recipe for disaster.  What is needed now is a bold plan to get the country's fiscal woes taken care of.  I'm not big on austerity, but some sacred cows will need to be sacrificed.  I wish we had a sense of unity and purpose, but instead we have a giant political wedge tearing us apart.  Not good. 
Like I said, still haven't decided on Obamney yet.  Either way I vote, I feel it won't change much.  I felt the same way in 2008, and I was right about not much changing.  I hate being a pessimist. 

And mods, I am not deviating at all from spaceflight here.  If we don't have budget stability here in U.S., the consequences are going to be severe all around, including for NASA.

[MATTBLAK]

It's less than 3 months until the election.  Does anyone know what Mitt Romney's space policy -is-?  I know what I'm getting with Obama.  I'm an undecided voter here, and space policy won't be the biggest thing on my mind when I go into the voting both.  Still, I don't want Romney to go towards his space policy with an axe, and see NASA as a tree.

Rest assured; whatever Obama comes out with, Romney will take the opposite position, no matter what that is. For better or worse...

[Proponent]

I think in the short run, Congress matters more to NASA than who the president is.  Regardless of who's in the Oval Office, NASA will not be a national priority.  It will continue to matter, however, to space-state senators and representatives.  For a president to make a major change to the status quo, he'd have to expend significant political capital, and space just isn't important enough for any president to be willing to do that.  Look what happened with Obama: his administration proposed a major change, but Congresspeople, both from the president's party and from the opposition, watered it down to Constellation-lite plus a bit of other stuff.

[QuantumG]

It requires no political capital to cut NASA to the bone. Has been done before with no repercussions.

[Proponent]

It requires no political capital to cut NASA to the bone. Has been done before with no repercussions.

Which episode of budget cutting are you referring to?

[Danderman]

A change of administration should see a change of NASA leadership, so that's my hope.

A change of administration would likely see starting all over for the human exploration program. Although Constellation needed to be put out of its misery, the current program seems to be workable, so that starting all over again would be a very bad idea.

Since it is unlikely that there will be a change of administration, this is really a moot question.

[Danderman]

It's less than 3 months until the election.  Does anyone know what Mitt Romney's space policy -is-?  I know what I'm getting with Obama.  I'm an undecided voter here, and space policy won't be the biggest thing on my mind when I go into the voting both.  Still, I don't want Romney to go towards his space policy with an axe, and see NASA as a tree.

This question should not be limited to space policy, I am unclear as to the specifics of just about any Romney policy. The impression I get is that Romney plans to work it all out should he be elected.

Unfortunately, that means that we won't know how badly he will cut NASA as part of the discretionary budget - until the cuts are announced.

[ChileVerde]

the current program seems to be workable

This is going to sound snarky, for which I apologize in advance as it's meant to be a serious question:

What current program?

As far as I can tell, NASA has no defined human exploration program. What it does have is a program to develop and/or procure some non-mission-specific hardware components (SLS core, four 5-segment SRBs, advanced boosters, payload adapter, fairing, Orion) that can be used in a human exploration program when one is eventually defined and funded.

[jtrame]

the current program seems to be workable

This is going to sound snarky, for which I apologize in advance as it's meant to be a serious question:

What current program?

As far as I can tell, NASA has no defined human exploration program. What it does have is a program to develop and/or procure some non-mission-specific hardware components (SLS core, four 5-segment SRBs, advanced boosters, payload adapter, fairing, Orion) that can be used in a human exploration program when one is eventually defined and funded.

EM-1 (2017) and EM-2 (2019- 2021) are well defined.  They are the beginning of the current  Human Exploration Program, and are at least a foundation for what lies beyond.  On the various proposals that we are all familar with on NSF the follow-on missions are EM-3, EM-4, etc.  Yes, at some point they need to settle on a path and when that happens, we'll probably be the first to know.  Of course, funding is a year by year thing and we never know how that's going to go.

[yg1968]

Some vague comments by Paul Ryan on the importance of NASA to the country:
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/paul-ryan-medicare-cuba-nasa-a-conversation-with-mitt-romneys-running-mate

See part 1 of the video for the conversation about NASA at 2:17 of the video.

[ChileVerde]

EM-1 (2017) and EM-2 (2019- 2021) are well defined.  They are the beginning of the current  Human Exploration Program, and are at least a foundation for what lies beyond.  On the various proposals that we are all familar with on NSF the follow-on missions are EM-3, EM-4, etc.  Yes, at some point they need to settle on a path and when that happens, we'll probably be the first to know.  Of course, funding is a year by year thing and we never know how that's going to go.

EM-1 and EM-2 are somewhat misnamed, as they are test and validation flights for the hardware, not exploration flights per se, a fact made clear by the NASA Advisory Council last March. And, in fact, the NAC opined that "NASA needs to show how EM-2 fits within the architecture for future human exploration beyond LEO..." 

As for EM-3 and EM-4, quien sabe?

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/631631main_12-03_HEOC.pdf

NASA ADVISORY COUNCIL HUMAN EXPLORATION & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE NAC HEOC
RICHARD KOHRS
MARCH 8, 2012

<snip>

Four missions/test flights planned to meet minimum mission/flight test

–Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1), an orbital, uncrewed test flight in 2014 provides MPVC system level tests and risk reduction opportunity

–Ascent Abort-2 (AA-2), an abort test in high dynamic pressure environment

–Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1), an Un-crewed BEO (lunar flyby) and EM-2, a crewed BEO flight (includes 3-4 day lunar orbit) will provide more system level testing and shakedown

<snip>

Recommendation #2
Name of Committee:
NAC HEO Committee
Short Title of Recommendation:
Specify Mission Objectives

Recommendation:
Develop specific mission objectives for Exploration Mission - 2 (EM-2) that justify the need for a crewed lunar orbit mission.

Major Reasons for the Recommendation:
The current mission objective for EM-2 is listed as, "Demonstrate crewed flight beyond LEO." Crewed flight beyond LEO was demonstrated more than 40 years ago in the Apollo program. NASA needs to show how EM-2 fits within the architecture for future human exploration beyond LEO and ensure that the objectives for a crewed lunar mission are consistent with the cost and risks involved.

Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation:
NASA leaves itself open to public criticism and loss of Congressional support if it cannot sufficiently justify the need for conducting a mission such as EM-2.

[jtrame]

EM-1 and EM-2 are somewhat misnamed, as they are test and validation flights for the hardware, not exploration flights per se, a fact made clear by the NASA Advisory Council last March. And, in fact, the NAC opined that "NASA needs to show how EM-2 fits within the architecture for future human exploration beyond LEO..." 

As for EM-3 and EM-4, quien sabe?

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/631631main_12-03_HEOC.pdf

NASA ADVISORY COUNCIL HUMAN EXPLORATION & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE NAC HEOC
RICHARD KOHRS
MARCH 8, 2012

<snip>

Four missions/test flights planned to meet minimum mission/flight test

–Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1), an orbital, uncrewed test flight in 2014 provides MPVC system level tests and risk reduction opportunity

–Ascent Abort-2 (AA-2), an abort test in high dynamic pressure environment

–Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1), an Un-crewed BEO (lunar flyby) and EM-2, a crewed BEO flight (includes 3-4 day lunar orbit) will provide more system level testing and shakedown

<snip>

Recommendation #2
Name of Committee:
NAC HEO Committee
Short Title of Recommendation:
Specify Mission Objectives

Recommendation:
Develop specific mission objectives for Exploration Mission - 2 (EM-2) that justify the need for a crewed lunar orbit mission.

Major Reasons for the Recommendation:
The current mission objective for EM-2 is listed as, "Demonstrate crewed flight beyond LEO." Crewed flight beyond LEO was demonstrated more than 40 years ago in the Apollo program. NASA needs to show how EM-2 fits within the architecture for future human exploration beyond LEO and ensure that the objectives for a crewed lunar mission are consistent with the cost and risks involved.

Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation:
NASA leaves itself open to public criticism and loss of Congressional support if it cannot sufficiently justify the need for conducting a mission such as EM-2.

[/quote]
Yes, and that pretty well sums up what our "current" program is.  A proper shakedown, as Scotty would say.  We're 99% in agreement, just dancing around verbage.  Thanks.

[wolfpack]

Alas, when it comes to space policy, there is little political price to pay for saying one thing during a Presidential campaign and then doing another once in office. I would not expect much difference from Romney versus Obama. Space exploration is not a national priority at this time, and won't be until attitudes change.

If you ask Joe Pedestrian about space budgets, the answer you'll hear 99% of the time is "That money could be put to better use here on Earth." NASA is best served by coming up with a convincing argument against that and making it to the public.

If I were a NASA administrator, one question I'd ask would be "How much PR can I buy for the price of a 5-segment SRB?"

[vulture4]

If we, the space enthusiast community, cannot change public perceptions we cannot expect NASA to do it. The Planetary Society and the astronomical community have been fairly successful with the idea of increasing human knowledge, which not eveyone understands but all have access to. The L-5 Society had some success with its advocacy for human spaceflight when the goal was to make it available to anyone.

That's why I advocate a return to the classical NACA mission of developing technology for practical and inexpensive human flight; I would simply extend the model to space. NACA would never have made a government-financed flight across the Atlantic to demonstrate American exceptionalism, instead they made it ordinary and routine.

We can't expect the taxpayers to finance another Apollo just because we think its cool. Practical human spaceflight, at a cost that will interest customers for science and tourism will provide practical benefits, a new industry, albeit a modest one, with jobs and customers, that could someday lead to the L-5 dream, something a half-trillion-dollar program that sends a handful of professionals to Mars will not accomplish.

This isn't a retreat from challange, far from it. It's an acceptance that the real challenge, building a sustainable human presence in space, is much more difficult than flying a spectacular mission on a blank check.

[QuantumG]

NACA would never have made a government-financed flight across the Atlantic to demonstrate American exceptionalism, instead they made it ordinary and routine.

Imagine if you went to NASA today with a plan to return humans to the surface of the Moon. It's a serious plan and you have serious money. Would they help you or hinder you?

I honestly don't know.

[Danderman]

This topic is about the potential impact on NASA of a change in administration in Washington.

If you want to talk about your plan to colonize the Moon, you probably should start up your own topic.  Chris tends to lock topics that veer off course.

[QuantumG]

This topic is about the potential impact on NASA of a change in administration in Washington.

If you want to talk about your plan to colonize the Moon, you probably should start up your own topic.  Chris tends to lock topics that veer off course.

I didn't take the thread offtopic.. if he wants to lock or trim the thread, he can do so. Use the report to moderator button instead of replying.

And I didn't say a damn thing about colonization or "my plan"..

[Blackstar]

This is what the Republican Party Platform says about space:

America’s Future in Space: Continuing this Quest
The exploration of space has been a key part of U.S. global leadership and has supported innovation and ownership of technology. Over the last half-century, in partnership with our aerospace industry, the work of NASA has helped define and strengthen our nation’s technological prowess. From building the world’s most powerful rockets to landing men on the Moon, sending robotic spacecraft throughout our solar system and beyond, building the International Space Station, and launching space-based telescopes that allow scientists to better understand our universe, NASA science and engineering have produced spectacular results. The technologies that emerged from those programs propelled our aerospace industrial base and directly benefit our national security, safety, economy, and quality of life. Through its achievements, NASA has inspired generations of Americans to study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, leading to careers that drive our country’s technological and economic engines.

Today, America’s leadership in space is challenged by countries eager to emulate—and surpass—NASA’s accomplishments. To preserve our national security interests and foster innovation and competitiveness, we must sustain our preeminence in space, launching more science missions, guaranteeing unfettered access, and maintaining a source of high-value American jobs.

[Go4TLI]

We can't expect the taxpayers to finance another Apollo just because we think its cool. Practical human spaceflight, at a cost that will interest customers for science and tourism will provide practical benefits, a new industry, albeit a modest one, with jobs and customers, that could someday lead to the L-5 dream, something a half-trillion-dollar program that sends a handful of professionals to Mars will not accomplish.

This isn't a retreat from challange, far from it. It's an acceptance that the real challenge, building a sustainable human presence in space, is much more difficult than flying a spectacular mission on a blank check.

None of that is meaningful and instead just fluff posed as nice rhetoric.

I leave you with something that is also just words but to provide some counterbalance, "if you have no destination, any path will take you there"

[aquanaut99]

Today, America’s leadership in space is challenged by countries eager to emulate—and surpass—NASA’s accomplishments. To preserve our national security interests and foster innovation and competitiveness, we must sustain our preeminence in space, launching more science missions, guaranteeing unfettered access, and maintaining a source of high-value American jobs.

Does anyone else see the conflict between "we must sustain our preeminence in space" and "we need to cut the 16 trillion debt without raising taxes"?

[clongton]

Hmm, here's a question. If there was a change of President, are General Bolden and Lori Garver automatically out? Not totally sure how it works.

At the beginning of a new Presidential term, whether it's a change of Administration or not, all Presidential appointees, regardless of the federal agency where they are employed, will submit a letter of resignation. The reason is (1) that non-career Presidential appointments are for the current term only and (2) all Presidential Appointees serve at the pleasure of the President. Some hope their resignation will be accepted because they don't wish to stay any longer and some hope it will not be accepted because they really do want to stay. A case in point is Mr. Mike Griffin. He was appointed by President Bush and at the end of President Bush’s term he submitted his letter of resignation - as expected. He made it clear however that he really wanted to stay on as NASA Administrator and even lobbied the Obama administration to keep him but President Obama instead accepted his resignation and Mike Griffin was gone. Had President Obama rejected the resignation, Mr. Griffin would still be NASA Administrator. The point is that Mr. Griffin had to resign and then leave it to the President whether or not to re-hire him.

So whether Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney occupies the White House after the election, both Mr. Bolden and Ms. Garver will need to resign. Whether or not the resignations will be accepted is another matter.

[majormajor42]

There's a feeling among some of us that we're slow rolling to wait to see what the outcome of the Presidential elections will be and I'm starting the thread to see what our fears and hopes will be.

Would it be better for another term for Obama, or would a change bring hope of extra focus on NASA, or threaten to delay matters as they work out what to do with the Agency?

Congress matters too. Since space is one of those presidential legacy making endeavors, I think a tough opposition can make it hard for either Obama or Romney. Although what might be good for NASA under a supermajority may have consequences in other areas of government.

[JohnFornaro]

I've got a take on this:

America’s Future in Space: Continuing this Quest

The exploration of space has been a key part of U.S. global leadership and has supported innovation and ownership of technology.

Of course we're not going to say it's a worthless enterprise; we'll say what everyone wants us to say on this subject.  I mean, really.

Over the last half-century ... From building the world’s most powerful rockets to landing men on the Moon, sending robotic spacecraft throughout our solar system and beyond...

All forty years ago...

building the International Space Station, and launching space-based telescopes ...

From ten or so years ago.  Fact is, they point to the past and not to the future.  Why?  They don't have a future destination in mind.  At all.

The technologies that emerged from those programs propelled our aerospace industrial base and directly benefit our national ...

Still reaping the benefits of the past.  A bit harsh, but they are also propagating a myth.

Through its achievements, NASA has inspired generations of Americans to study science...

Which of course doesn't square with the renewed interest in STEM subjects, due to the prevalence of graduates in sociological subjects.

Today, America’s leadership in space is challenged by countries eager to emulate -- and surpass -- NASA’s accomplishments. To preserve our national security interests...

Which pretty much has always been the case since the Cold War.  First, talk about the so-called inspiration of our leaders, then talk about pride about our past accomplishments, and finally talk about imagined fears.

...and foster innovation and competitiveness...

While trying to gut commercial space...

... we must sustain our preeminence in space, launching more science missions, guaranteeing unfettered access, and maintaining a source of high-value American jobs.

By sending droids and not astronauts, and ceding the high ground in advance.  Preeminence comes with people, not with robots.  And who, exactly, is getting unfettered access?  Not private industry.

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/gop-plaform-calls-for-sustaining-u-s-preeminence-in-space-but-little-else-about-the-space-program

GOP Platform Calls for Sustaining U.S. Preeminence in Space, But Little Else About the Space Program

I agree, I'm not as diplomatic as this headline.

[yg1968]

Hmm, here's a question. If there was a change of President, are General Bolden and Lori Garver automatically out? Not totally sure how it works.

At the beginning of a new Presidential term, whether it's a change of Administration or not, all Presidential appointees, regardless of the federal agency where they are employed, will submit a letter of resignation. The reason is (1) that non-career Presidential appointments are for the current term only and (2) all Presidential Appointees serve at the pleasure of the President. Some hope their resignation will be accepted because they don't wish to stay any longer and some hope it will not be accepted because they really do want to stay. A case in point is Mr. Mike Griffin. He was appointed by President Bush and at the end of President Bush’s term he submitted his letter of resignation - as expected. He made it clear however that he really wanted to stay on as NASA Administrator and even lobbied the Obama administration to keep him but President Obama instead accepted his resignation and Mike Griffin was gone. Had President Obama rejected the resignation, Mr. Griffin would still be NASA Administrator. The point is that Mr. Griffin had to resign and then leave it to the President whether or not to re-hire him.

So whether Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney occupies the White House after the election, both Mr. Bolden and Ms. Garver will need to resign. Whether or not the resignations will be accepted is another matter.

Remembering what happened with Griffin. I believe that the President will usually ask a very few selected people to stay on prior to the date of the Inauguration (which is January 20).  You usually know before hand if you will be staying on. So if you are asked by the President to stay on (e.g. former Secretary of Defense Gates) prior to the Inauguration, you simply don't send your letter of resignation to the President. I think that this avoids you having to be-reconfirmed by the Senate. If you are not asked by the President to stay on prior to Inauguration, you send your letter of resignation. 51D Mascot would be a better person to give you all of the details.

[ChileVerde]

guaranteeing unfettered access

I could very easily be very, very wrong about this, but I suspect that's a way of saying "We won't agree to any code of conduct."